air." and we've been wondering what the real purpose was behind rand paul's near 13-hour performance in the senate yesterday. because even the senator himself seemed to have a very narrow purpose in mind. >> i don't question the president's motives. i don't think the president would purposely take innocent people and kill them. i really don't think he'd drop a hell fire missile on a cafe or a restaurant like i'm talking about. but it bothers me that he won't say that he won't. >> it begs the question of whether mr. paul is actually more interested in the 12th amendment which concerns the election of the president as opposed to the fifth. we were wondering if rand paul might have seen another hapless roll out by marco rubio touted as a potential republican front-runner for 2016. >> nothing has frustrated me more than false choices like the one the president laid out tonight.

the choice isn't just between big government or big business. >> or perhaps mr. paul witnessed the embarrassing sight of jeb bush publishing a book on immigration and then contradicting its contents. >> you do not want to offer them a path to citizenship. >> mr. paul has varied track record. we know he voted against the violence against women act signed into law today. appears to support the use of transvaginal probes, and would like to repeal the 1964 civil rights act. but compared with messrs. rubio and bush, rand paul has just delivered a seamless 13-hour long promotion of himself without even resorting to a cathet catheter. for that he's probably improved his odds on a run for 2016, and that's probably the reason why he did it. thanks so much for watching this afternoon. chris matthews and "hardball" is next. drone ranger. let's play "hardball."

♪ good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. america is the land of liberty. people born here get the greatest most well-guarded rights in the world and there's nothing i'm prouder of. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what america is all about. so we have debates, debates about the most central questions, these questions, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. and those words are the ones that jefferson gave us. tonight we go after those questions starting with the question as out there as it may be. does the united states government have the right to target an american here in america with a drone strike? we have a great person to address that question. senator dianne feinstein, chair of the united states senate committee on intelligence. anyway, late this afternoon before we get started, john brennan was confirmed to be the next head of the cia, the final vote was pretty strong, 63-34.

brennan's nomination reig nated debate about the use of drones against american citizens overseas. and then senator rand paul added a wrinkle. he wanted to know can the government kill americans here on u.s. soil? last night he staged an epic nearly 13-hour filibuster on the senate floor to raise alarms about the possibility. earlier this week attorney general eric holder wrote that paul's seen care yo was entirely hypothetical, would only be possible under extraordinary circumstances. such as after pearl harbor or 9/11 attacks. that did not satisfy senator paul. let's take a look. >> very specific question we're asking is, does the president believe he has the authority to kill americans who are not engaged in combat in america with targeted drone strikes and i think the answer is no, but they haven't given us that answer. >> well, today white house spokesman jay carney said the attorney general sent paul's letter a new letter -- sent senator paul's office a new letter answering that question.

let's listen to the comment. >> this is from the letter. quote, does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil. the answer is no. the answer to that question is no. and that is a letter that is signed by the attorney general and was submitted to senator paul and his office. >> finally this afternoon rand paul, the senator, said he was satisfied with the administration's response. let's listen to paul. >> hooray. for 13 hours yesterday we asked them that question and so there is a result and a victory under duress and under public humiliati humiliation, the white house will respond and do the right thing. so now after 13 hours of filibuster we're proud to announce that the president is not going to kill unarmed americans on american soil. my next question would be why did it take so long? why is it so hard? and why would a president so

jealously guard power they were afraid to say this? but i am glad, and i think that answered that question -- the answer does answer my question. >> senator feinstein, thank you for joining us from capitol hill. was that a reasonable demand by your colleague, senator paul, or is this sort of a story built up by him, hyped up? >> well, i think it's built up, i think it's hyped up, i think it's cleared up. it was cleared up yesterday when senator cruz asked the question in the judiciary committee, and, you know, it can be a complicated question. when it's reduced down to the basic simple fact of what it was said, the answer is clearly no. and no drone is going to be used in the united states against an american citizen walking down a street or sitting in a cafe. and, you know, and then there was a stupid example of a drone being used against jane fonda.

i mean, i don't think this is befitting the senate floor. having said that, clearly senator paul got the answer in writing signed by the attorney general which is very definitive. >> yeah. here is your colleague, john mccain. he took to the senate floor today and attacked senator paul saying he's giving credence to people who fear the government -- that fear that the government is out to get them, sort of the black helicopter crowd. let's watch your other colleague, john mccain, in action here. >> to somehow allege or infer that the president of the united states sf going to kill somebody like jane fonda or someone who disagrees with the policies is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous. we've done a, i think, a disservice to a lot of americans by making them believe that somehow they're in danger from their government. they're not.

>> do you think, senator, that technology, and you and i have grown up with the dynamic, almost unblofable exponential growth in what mankind can do with technology, is that playing to the paranoia in people. they think if we have the capability we're going to use it against average citizens who are of a different political persuasion? is that why the far right is so nervous? >> well, i think the drone is a new technology. in some respects it's the perfect assassination weapon. it can see from 17,000, 20,000 feet up in the air. it is very precise. it can knock out a room in a building if it's armed. it's a very dangerous weapon, and right now we have a problem. there are all these nations that want to buy these armed drones. i am strongly opposed to that. we have no regulation of drones in the united states in their commercial use. you can see drones some day

hovering over the homes of hollywood luminaries violating privacy. this question has to be addressed, and we need rules of operation on the border, by police, by commercial use, and also by military and intelligence use. so this is now a work in progress. we are taking a look at it on the intelligence committee trying to draft some legislation. the administration is looking at a rules playbook as to how these won't be used and how they will be used. so it's a very complicated subject of new technology, and i think we have to take a pause and get it right. >> it's great to have you on, senator die ann feinstein who chairs the senate intelligence committee. thank you for joining us. eugene robin nis is a columnist for "the washington post" and an msnbc political analyst. the great thing about having you on, you know washington theater. you have seen mr. smith a

thousand times like most of us. you know how this is done. did paul score a big point on the right or even across the country by standing out there for 13 hours in a real filibuster? >> i think he did, and, look, my column for tomorrow is first and probably only column i will ever write that's kind of complimentary to rand paul in that i think he did a service by making us focus on drones by making us focus on this new technology for all the reasons that senator feinstein enumerated. they're very precise, they're very deadly. she called it the perfect assassination weapon and that's kind of what it is. and even if you -- if it's ridiculous to think that a president of the united states is going to assassinate a citizen on u.s. soil with this technology, even if that's far-fetched, if it served -- if raising that question served to focus us on what's happening, not what's going to happen, but what's happening now on the fact that there are reasons to use

these things domestically -- >> are you concerned that we have to have this kind of debate publicly. that there is a possibility somewhere out there on the edge that -- not going to say he did it, but somebody on the far right like dick cheney, who has pushed waterboarding and things, will push this thing that far? do you think it's possible that a jane fonda could be targeted even by the most right wing american politician we can imagine? >> i don't think anybody is going to target jane fonda -- >> or any american -- unless they're carrying a gun. >> there are police departments across the country that have filed applications to be able to fly drones for surveillance or for whatever. we had this situation in -- outside of los angeles the other week where the rogue cop was -- had killed all these people. potentially you could have used a drone to do surveillance there and if you decided the cabin wasn't approachable and he was putting lives in danger h would police departments have wanted

to have the option -- >> what would be wrong with using that technology rather than a bomb thrown in the window? >> good question. good question. >> we've had experience in philadelphia when they blew up a whole bock. >> philadelphia as usual ahead of its time. >> in all sear yusness -- why is using the drone worse than, say, smoking out the house or killing the guy. >> it's killing the guy, and there is a certain antiseptic, creepy, at a distance quality -- >> stand back weapons. >> to drone warfare that i think we need to deal with. we're goss to use them in various ways and we need to figure it out. >> i think you're right and i think hemingway used to write about that, it's tougher to be an infantry man than tank driver because you have to do the walking into the fear, physically walk into it. look at this point lindsey graham made about the republicans who joined with senator paul in that filibuster yesterday. let's listen to graham. >> to my republican colleagues,

i don't remember any of you coming down here suggesting that president bush was going to kill anybody with a drone. you know. i don't even remember the harshest critics of president bush on the democratic side, they had a drone program back then. so what is it all of a sudden that this drone program has gotten every republican so spun up? to my party, i'm a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we're at war. >> you know, this is the fascinating thing about the right wing and people watching this show are students of it, maybe in danger of it. you have the neocon people like lindsey graham and john mccain who are ready at the snap of the fingers to go to war. that's the first solution. let's go to war. they always have one ready. then you have the very conservative, old pat buchanan breed, of people like rand paul who are very suspicious of our power being used for any purpose besides basic national defense. >> yeah, right. that's the split in the republican party and they're

going to have to deal with that. the other thing he was driving at i think is, look, i personally, like a lot of democrats i guess, i have confidence -- i know that president obama thinks about the use of drones and i know that he and -- i have confidence in him -- >> suppose cheney were president right now. >> exactly. >> right now. >> he's only going to be president for another 3 1/2 years. others are going to follow, and unless we kind of think about what sort of limits, if any, we want to put -- >> you remember cheney's speech about the shadowlands and the gray areas of the world and the hallways and the back hauls. >> exactly. >> he talks like that. i'm glad -- my son michael has been tough on me on this. he's a very civil libertarian guy. i've become less of a skeptic. i think rand paul probably did something good for the country in the last two days and i'm sure he hats to hear me say that. >> he's going to hate my column tomorrow. >> look. a broken clock is right twice a day as i have said before. thank you. you can all remember that one.

thank you, eugene robinson. coming up, if there's one thing we learned from rand paul yesterday is senators want to filibuster, they ought to stand up and talk in the old way. jimmy stewart, get out there and talk. did he it for 13 hours. the republicans have filibustered president's choice for the d.c. court of appeals even without doing anything. they didn't have to do a thing. up next, hand it to arkansas. now has the most restrictive abortion law in the country on the books at least. republicans, of course, passed a law setting a limit down there at 12 weeks when a fetal heartbeat can be heard. well, this is because on the ride feel the country isn't moving fast enough to ban apportions. maybe that's because most people are pro-choice. president obama followed up his dinner with a lunch today with the very important guy, paul ryan, who is chair of the budget committee. is it possible the republicans have decided that opposing the president at all costs is no longer worth the price? let me finish with how republicans and democrats can actually compromise. it's doable. this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ kitt ] you know what's impressive? a talking car.

but i'll tell you what impresses me. a talking train. this ge locomotive can tell you exactly where it is, what it's carrying, while using less fuel. delivering whatever the world needs, when it needs it. ♪ after all, what's the point of talking if you don't have something important to say? ♪ [ man ] on in 5! [ female announcer ] it works as hard as you do... to outlast your day. [ man ] action! wow! [ female announcer ] secret outlast clear gel is better than the next leading invisible solid on white marks. longer worth the price? clear gel.

no surprises here. hillary clinton's leading the pack for president 2016. let's the "hardball" scoreboard. secretary clinton would beat new jersey governor chris christie by eight points, 45%, 37%. beat congressman paul ryan by 12, and against senator marco rubio hillary's lead is 16, 50% to 34%. her head to head poll numbers against those three republicans are stronger than fellow democrats. joe biden and andrew cuomo trail. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." there they go again. republicans in arkansas this time yesterday overturned their democratic governor's veto and passed what will be the country's most restrictive abortion law. the human heartbeat protection act it's called which bans most abortions after a woman's 12th week of pregnancy. and that's three months before the usual viability standard and before some women even know their pregnant governor mike bee bee called the bill

unconstitutional. already thea clu has planned to challenge the law in federal course. cecile richards a president planned parenthood and here with some of her argument to legalize abortion in the fall of '72. >> we are not here to advocate abortion. we do not ask this court to rule that abortion is good or dishonorable in any particular situation. we are here to advocate that the decision as to whether or not a particular woman will continue to carry or will terminate a pregnancy is a decision that should be made by that individual. that, in fact, she has a constitutional right to make that decision for herself. >> sarah, thank you for coming on so much. i have great respect for your historic role, of course. let me ask you this, what does it mean for a state to just all by itself like a cowboy go out there and say we're going to cut the term from sick months to three months in which you can have an abortion, you can make that decision. what could they possibly attempt

to do knowing it will be declared unconstitutional? >> i think there are a number of things. one is sometimes you use an issue just to try to put together support for your position. it may be that they're just trying to start a movement, a parade as it were, of other states to pass the same kind of law, but if you look at the roe versus wade decision, this is my copy with all the judges' signatures, it clearly says, no, you can't do that. in fact, yesterday in idaho there was a law that banned abortion basically after 20 weeks, and a court ruled that unconstitutional. now, so, first, it could be they're just trying to get a parade going, lead people. the country overwhelmingly does not agree with that. second is they may be thinking, well, right now this court would hold roe -- would hold the arkansas law unconstitutional but what if there's a new president and some vacancies and we get some new people on the

court? maybe they would approve it. and, third -- >> right now where do you stand right now on roberts or kennedy deciding votes? do you think they might go with something as extreme as to cut the term in half where a woman would be allowed to choose? >> i don't see kennedy doing that. roberts i don't know. >> well, let me go over to cecile, my friend. let me ask you about this to your cause, women's health and reproductive rights. what's it going to say to your members, women out there most of whom are pro-choice to hear some state is going out on its own and saying we're going to cut the time down, let's make it three months. just out of nowhere. where do they get this number from? >> look, chris, what we're seeing, as you said, this country was so clear in this last election. the biggest gender gap ever in the history of gallup polling saying people in this country and particularly women do not want to go back. roe has been, thanks to sarah and a lot of other good folks, roe has been the law of the land for 40 years now.

never had stronger support. this thing that is really frustrating is it's not only attacks on a woman's right to make decisions about her pregnancy. the same politicians, in fact, the same politician in arkansas is intrer deucing a bill to end women's ability to get birth control at planned parenthood. so it's a much bigger assault. i think women, frankly, are sick and tired of being the target of politicians. >> let's talk about politicians, sarah. i know you're an attorney. i don't know what your politics are, maybe you're a democrat, maybe you're a republican. here is the story, the republican party still holds to the fact its latest platform, it's very sfef on the topic of abortion. it reads, quote, faithful to the self-evident truths enshrined in the declaration of evidence, we assert the sanctity of human liver and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to liver which cannot be infringed. we support a human life amendment to the constitution and endorse legislation to make clear 14th amendment's protections apply to unborn children. here is a national republican

party saying in its latest document of belief that the unborn child at any stage of development from conception on has the right to property, has the right to life, and to liberty. what can they possibly mean by those last two and what are they up to except to say you shouldn't have any abortions in this country and arkansas is only being somewhere in the middle here? >> well, i'm going to tell every -- and by the way i'm a big democrat. i'm going to tell every group that i speak to about what arkansas has done and what the republican platform has done. because every time this issue has been presented to the voters where a legislative mandate to make life begin at conception, the constitution says all persons born or naturalized. every time you present that to the public, they say no. >> that's right. >> and part of that is because so many -- >> even alabama. >> -- couples rely on in vitro fertilization. sorry, go ahead. >> no, sarah -- i was going to

say you're exactly right. and we even saw the state of mississippi, one of the most conservative states in the country, overwhelmingly reject this kind of ideology, and i think the sad thing is, chris, this is not where most republicans are either. i feel like that the republican party is being held hostage by some folks on the very, very furthest end of the spectrum of the issue. frankly, the american people say we want to get the economy going, get people back to work and for goodness sake, make sure women can have access to birth control in this country. >> 70% -- both of you, although you may both be democrats and be progressive, the fact is 70% of the country agrees with you. leave roe v. wade alone. no one can forget the comments during todd akin's crazy campaign, that women who are victims of legitimate rape he called it can simply make their bodies prevent con sengs. akin lost a gimme election and in indiana richard mourdock's campaign went belly up when he said a pregnancy resulting from rape was good god's wail but

republicans keep talking about rape. a potential senate candidate followed up on akin's assertion this is january. catch this. it continues. >> i'm an obgny doctor. i've been an ob-gyn doctor for a long time, since 1975 and i've delivered lots of babies and i know about these things. it is true, we tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of not -- the woman not ovulating, just relax, drink a glass of wine, and don't be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate. so he was partially right, wasn't he? but the fact that a woman may have already ovulated 12 hours before she is raped, you're not going to prevent a pregnancy there by a woman shutting

anything down because the horse has already left the barn, so to speak. >> well, the reference -- this guy's metaphors are beyond imagination. i'm thinking of john riggins talking to sandra day o'connor, lighten up judge. let me go to you, sarah, you have the history behind you. what do men talk about -- they talk about rape. what do republican men talk about rape? what is it in the water supply or the barn leaving the dog or whatever the stuff, why are they talking about rape all the time? your thoughts. >> well, i have no idea, but there was a great cartoon during the last election and it was a big button that said vote and it was a woman's finger on it saying we know how to shut them down and that's what happened in the last election. >> who was the guy that said put an aspirin between your knees and all this -- cecile, you know this stuff, too. why don't you just tell them in the interest of political success stop talking. >> well, chris, you said it best at the end of the last election is when someone asked you did the rape guy win and you have to

ask which one, you know it's a disaster. the fact someone is still depending todd akin and this guy is running for united states senate. >> gingrey is one of the hot shots down in georgia the democrats are praying to run against. cecile, always nice to have you on. i don't think this is a big threat. sarah, great honor to have you on. i did know you were a democrat. i was letting you explain that to us instead because you did work at the white house when i was there. thank you. rand paul brought up adolf hitler -- another phrase h adolf hitler and rape. while the logic was tortured it's a reference he's made time and time again. i have an explanation. he's a little off the loose end sometimes. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

but we can still help you see your big picture. with the fidelity guided portfolio summary, you choose which accounts to track and use fidelity's analytics to spot trends, gain insights, and figure out what you want to do next. all in one place. i'm meredith stoddard and i helped create the fidelity guided portfolio summary. it's one more innovative reason serious investors are choosing fidelity. now get 200 free trades when you open an account. for tapping into a wealth of experience. for access to one of the top wealth management firms in the country. for a team of financial professionals who provide customized solutions.

for all of your wealth management and retirement goals, discover how pnc wealth management can help you achieve. visit pnc.com/wealthsolutions to find out more. hi victor! mom? i know you got to go in a minute but this is a real quick meal, that's perfect for two! campbell's chunky beef with country vegetables, poured over rice! [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right. poured over rice! if youthen this willbrids arbe a nice surprise. meet the 5-passenger ford c-max hybrid. c-max come. c-max go. c-max give a ride to everyone it knows. c max has more passenger volume than competitor prius v and we haven't even mentioned... c-max also gets better mpg. say hi to the super fuel efficient ford c-max hybrid.

try running four.ning a restaurant is hard, fortunately we've got ink. it gives us 5x the rewards on our internet, phone charges and cable, plus at office supply stores. rewards we put right back into our business. this is the only thing we've ever wanted to do and ink helps us do it. make your mark with ink from chase. back to "hardball." now to the "sideshow."

steve colbert had some thoughts about the hoopla over the snowstorm in washington this week. the one here in d.c. and how it somehow got lumped in with talk about spending cuts. >> they're calling it the snowquester. >> snowquester. >> the snowquester. >> snowiester. >> they're calling it snowquester which i think is great. isn't that cute? >> of course, the word snowquester is a combination of snow and the sequester. i think we should name all of our weather events after what kind they are plus whatever people are talking about on television at the time. today washington is blanketed in the snowquester. tomorrow a storm covers new york in drone-sicles. or a freak blizzardashian. as we speak oklahoma is still suffering the effects of hope been a drought the xvi. >> the snowquester was only one way to dub yesterday's mishmash

of events. rand paul went with filli mississippi blizzard. as i told you yesterday, somewhere towards the beginning of that bill fuser he dropped a reference to hitler. >> out of that chaos hitler was elected democratically. they elected him out of this chaos. the point isn't that anybody in our country is hitler. i'm not accusing anybody of being that evil. i think it's an over played and a misused analogy, but what i am saying is that in a democracy you could some day elect someone who is very evil. that's why we don't give the power to the government. >> well, senator paul went on to say that he was by no means comparing anyone in today's politics to hitler of course. only warning of what could happen down the line if we don't cut government spending. you may have been surprised to hearle warning we're on the road to naziism, but here is the

thing, rand paul and his here come hitler's warnings have a long history together. talking points memo kept track. >> what happened in germany when they printed up so much money you carried it around in wheelbarrow. there was a collapse and they voted in a hitler. you could get something like that in our country if we're not careful and vigilant. the danger is, i think, runaway inflation where the money becomes worthless. i fear more a time like the weimar republic in 1923 where the germans carried their money around in wheelbarrows. >> the pictures in our history book, most people have seen them, money in wheelbarrows. people burning their money for fuel, and out of that came chaos and came hitler. >> hitler was basically elected in his first election but he was elected because there was chaos. people actually democratically voted in a hitler and i worry about that again in our country if the money is destroyed in our country, could we get a time where a strong leader comes forward and says, we just need security.

i'll make you safe but just give me your liberty. >> repetition is the mother of memory. rand paul's obsession with 1920s german inflation is probably rooted in his love 69 gold standard. fact check, prices in the united states rose 1/6 of 1% in january. hardly a call for more wheelbarrows. finally representing the nra without a rifle? you might think the nra would want its field representatives to be an ideal reflection of responsible gun ownership here in the u.s. that's not quite the situation for richard delora. he has been barred from owning and purchasing firearms since last year according to the daily news. the nra's field representative is in the paper today is forb forbidden from owning guns under an organization of protection stemming from a confrontation with his wife in the their long island home. at the time the police confiscated 39 pistols, shotguns and weapons d' alauro kept in

their home. the judge continued an order of protection for one year banning him from owning or purchasing firearms. he pleaded guilty to harassment charge and he will pay lirntly get his 39 firearms back in october. his lawyer says it's of no significance whatever that his client cannot own a gun while representing the nra. up next, the one thing we learned from rand paul is senators want to filibuster, they ought to do it the way he did it, talking until you can't talk anymore. he had to go to the bathroom apparent apparently. and that's ahead. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. [ male announcer ] it's red lobster's lobsterfest our largest selection of lobster entrees, like lobster lover's dream or new grilled lobster and lobster tacos. come in now and sea food differently. visit redlobster.com now for an exclusive $10 coupon on two lobsterfest entrees.

visit redlobster.com now and you wouldn't have it any other way.e. but your erectile dysfunction - you know, that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

advil pm® or tylenol pm. the advil pm® guy is spending less time lying awake with annoying aches and pains and more time asleep. advil pm®. the difference is a better night's sleep.

i'm sue herera with your cnbc market wrap. the dow rises for a third straight day moving further into record territory. the s&p added two and the nasdaq gained 9 points. a report on planned layoffs

showed employers announced more than 55,000 job cuts in february, up sharply from january. meanwhile, applications for state jobless benefits fell by 7,000 in the latest week. economists had expected a gain. and tomorrow we will get the february jobs report which is expected to show the unemployment rate falling to 7.8% with 160,000 jobs created. that's it from cnbc, we are first in business worldwide. now back to chris and "hardball." ♪ i will speak until i can no longer speak. i will speak as long as it takes until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our constitution is important. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was, of course, rand paul. he began his epic filibuster in 12 hours and 50 minutes later there he is something of a hero.

here he is ending it. >> i would go for another 12 hours to try to break strom thurmond's record but i've discovered there are some limits to filibustering and i'm going to have to go take care of one of those in a few minutes here. thank you very much for the forbearance and i yield the floor. >> i don't know why he referenced hitler, now he's reference strom thurmond. anyway, senator paul's filibuster was old school, the kind of performance people imagine when they hear filibuster and think of jimmy smith and mr. stewart goes to washington. without having to utter a peep, senate republicans are able to block president obama's nominee to the u.s. court of appeals kaitlyn halligan. the practice has been vilified by democrats and republicans. when you're a minority, it's a potent tool. senator tom udall pushed to end the silent filibuster at the end of this congress and is

committed to fill bust he reform. michael steele is always for reform. he's the former chair of the republican national economy. senator udall, i applaud completely what you have tried to do. explain if you can why any decent person including a progressive senator would support this stupid thing where any senator in the world can simply say tell the majority leader i think i'm going to filibuster and that is effectively a killing off of that legislation. >> chris, nobody should be able to support that. that's the basic idea. one senator holding up the whole show and i don't think that's what the american people want and i don't think it's what most senators want. i think what they want to see is if you have an objection, you have a statement, you have something to put out there for the american people, you go down to the floor and do it rather than secretly block things and hold things up, and that's -- >> what does harry reid say? you're in harry reid's office. imagine you're sitting with harry reid, the old prop.

he speaks softly but he has a big stick. what does he say when you get in there was the new kid on the block to say this. >> when we urged him to do this and he was for this and we were moving down the road, he did the vote count and i didn't think we were quite there. he didn't think we had enough votes -- >> did you have his vote? >> he wanted to do this. he wanted to do this. he said he wanted to do this and he said he didn't have enough votes and that's where we were, but the idea is still a very good one and it was proven out in the two situations you just talked about. halligan, secret, exception, behind the scenes, people don't realize that court needs four justices and she was very well-qualified and she was deep sixed. on the other hand, rand paul stepped up to the plate, made his point, got some answers, and we got the brennan nomination gone. >> let me talk to michael steele. it seems to me we have a very good system of checks and balances. to get something passed you have to get it through the house and through the senate and the

president has to sign it. that's enough, but adding to that now is you have to have 60 votes in the senate which means with neither party ever getting 60 votes, it makes another hurdle and it makes government so much less efficient and the public is demanding action. they're not demanding stopping things. >> i agree with you. and i applaud the senator for his efforts to try to open up the process to allow more of what rand paul did if the senator really feels that strongly about a nomination or a particular issue. when it comes to -- >> we've just reached the physical limits about the potty here. he had to go to the bathroom. it's one way of saying, okay, you put -- and it worked. >> no, 13 hours. he held -- actually i have to admit it was pretty good political television to watch and to hear these individuals get up and speak from durbin to rand to cruz. so that process i think exposed the side of the political expression that a lot of americans appreciate and, quite frankly, miss from the jimmy stewart days. >> book to the senator. mr. udall, can you get this

done? will we get to the point you can't have any filibuster unless it's real? >> i think we're going to get there and i the reason i say, that you should see the new senators who have just come on. they are so frustrated with what's happening now. they're talking, many of them and some of the more senior senators are saying, you know, this is a bad situation. we've got some real anger because the place isn't working, and i would hate to see a rule change in midstream, but we could see one with this kind of reneging on deals we thought had been made. >> under the budget act you get like one time a year when you're guaranteed a vote on reconciliation, right? otherwise you're never guaranteed a vote on anything, right? >> oh, no, you can get a lot of votes in the senate. and it's done usually through agreements and through a negotiation do -- >> unanimous consent. >> unanimous consent and you can

bt. >> you have just made your point. if all 100 senators say you can have a vote, otherwise you don't get it. michael, what kind of way is it to run a country? >> it's not a good way to run the country. i think you talked about the silent filibuster. there's a lot of concern as the senator noted that a lot of the freshmen senators are frustrated by the process. here is the reality. it's great to push back against the system and want to reform it when you are in the majority, okay? but as harry reid noted, we could be in the minority in two years and this is a tool, a powerful tool we would like to have as we saw them use -- >> but this guy, senator udall, you noticed is in the majority and he's trying to reduce the ultimate power -- >> he's trying to reduce the ultimate power, but harry reid won't let it happen. and at the end of the day you can bring the reforms to the table, you asked the right question, where is harry reid on this? the majority leadership is like we could be in the -- they're always looking down -- >> you know i would like to see a vote on this. i think a vote would be very

happy. mr. reid, an admirable man in many ways, should have a vote. thank you very much. you're a real reformer. and michael steele. when we come back, progressives are applauding rand paul's filibuster. up next, dinner with republican senators, lunch with paul ryan and also joining us is congressman van hollen who is also there today. chris van hollen. have republicans finally decided to sit down with the president? this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ male announcer ] i've seen incredible things. otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪

suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. we replaced people with a machine.r, what? customers didn't like it. so why do banks do it? hello? hello?! if your bank doesn't let you talk to a real person 24/7, you need an ally. hello? ally bank. your money needs an ally. here, it's found in many forms. it's in the pristine sands of a perfect beach. it's in the soothing waters of the turquoise sea. and it's in the faces of all who set foot on our shores. behold...the islands of the bahamas.

big news. another democratic retirement in the u.s. senate. senator carl levin, a great guy, democrat from michigan, says he won't seek re-election in 2014. levin is the fourth democrat to announce his retirement this year following iowa's tom harkin, west virginia avenues jay rockefeller and frank lautenberg of new jersey. like all these guys. that means democrats need to defend four more open seats as well as seven seats in states that voted for mitt romney. republicans need to net six seats to win control of the senate. it's doable for the republicans next. . and we'll be right back. [ whistle blows ] hi victor! mom?

i know you got to go in a minute but this is a real quick meal, that's perfect for two! campbell's chunky beef with country vegetables, poured over rice! [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right. only hertz gives you a carfirmation. hey, this is challenger. i'll be waiting for you in stall 5. it confirms your reservation and the location your car is in, the moment you land. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz.

hi, i'm ensure clear... clear, huh? i'm not juice or fancy water. i've got nine grams of protein. that's three times more than me! [ female announcer ] ensure clear. nine grams protein. zero fat. in blueberry/pomegranate and peach.

we're back. the great 19th century republican kingmaker mark hanna once said isn't there something we should look like we're doing in while last night president obama and republicans are certainly trying to do at least that. last night the president met with a group of supposedly persuadable republicans to try to get something done. at least some of the senators seemed to leave feeling hopeful. >> senator mccain, how did the meeting go? >> just fine. great, wonderful. >> i am more optimistic just from a personal standpoint. >> it was serious, it was face-to-face, i appreciate the pred asking some of us to come over and talk to him, and we got away from the politics of it. >> it was very open, honest, sincere genuine discussion. >> i think it was helpful and i think it's the way this country ought to operate and that is executive branch sitting down with legislators, talking through issues. it was a very sincere discussion. >> that's hopeful i can say. maybe it's because the

president's slipping poll numbers. maybe it's because maybe they w make it look that way. whatever the reason today, president obama continued his charm offensive. lunching with former vice president candidate, congressman paul ryan. and, of course, joining him was chris van ryan. you were there at this tripartide lunch. what is the president trying to get across? >> we had a good lunch, good conversation, good meal. i think it was a good spirit. i think what the president is trying to do is engage as many people as possible in this dialogue. to try to move the ball forward. we've got a lot of big issues we've got to tackle on the budget and on immigration reform and other issues. but until we get out of this situation where we're in now where we're going from one manufactured crisis to another, the country cannot be at its full potential. >> as you see it, as a democrat, what is the fight about?

when people say they are always fighting in washington, there's all of this dysfunction, there's all of this stuff, what is the fight? >> the fight, when it comes to the budget, are what are our priorities and values. the document is filled with a bunch of numbers, but those numbers say a lot about who we are. so what the president says is he wants to put together a budget that grows the economy and strengthens the middle class. that means getting rid of wasteful stuff and investing important things like education, research and development, infrastructure. and when it comes to our seniors, it means meeting our commitment to our seniors and doing it in a fiscally responsible way. so you've got to reduce the deficit. the debate is over how you do that. the president says everybody's got to participate. so we've got to make some targeted cuts. it also means we've got to get revenue. this time, revenue, from eliminating a lot of the tax breaks -- >> how much money can you raise in revenue that would affect the

deficit? you'd have to raise so many billions of dollars. how can you do it in reform? >> the president has a plan on the table that says for high-income earners, you get to take a bunch of deductions, but your rate is capped at 28%. instead of 38 cents on the dollar, you get 28 cents on the dollar. it limits the value of your deductions without taking them away. that raises a substantial amount of money. getting rid of oil and gas subsidies. those are other things you can do, chris. >> but how does that -- you've got a liberal democratic party. nancy pelosi. are they going to be satisfied with some kind of tax reform? they never accepted the entitlements.

i just don't see them as commence ri. >> the president is not going after medicaid. >> no, the president is going to do it. >> well, they do want to go after medicaid. on medicare, we just have a difference in approach. we all recognize we have to have savings in medicare. republicans want to transfer rising health care costs and the risks on the backs of seniors. the approach we want to take is the way we did in the affordable care act. you need to change the structure in medicare. so there's less incentive to have higher bills, where nobody has an incentive to save costs to one where you focus on the value of care instead of the volume in care. so you make this reform and the need is to reform. i've heard all of these arguments from the president. and you sit down with the republicans who are reachable or teachable.

what are they saying? they're not saying yes. >> well, what they've been saying is you guys already got your revenue. but the universe didn't begin on january 1st. we also did $1.5 trillion in cuts over the last couple years by putting spending caps in place. so what the president says is let's look at the bipartisan commissions as a model, right? they have a lot more revenue than we've raised already. and they have some additional cuts. >> okay. you're an expert. do you think there's a chance that in this year, the two parties can get together, even if they have to go around the republican leadership and achieve some kind of grand deal? >> i think there is a chance. there's a chance that people are willing to put the politics aside, focus on solutions and take that balanced approach. and the public is overwhelming. >> well, we know it started this week. we'll see how far you guys can go. anyway, thank you, congressman. when we return, let me finish with why republicans and democrats actually can compromise. it's doable. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. commitment to the gulf.

and every day since, we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy. we've shared what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. s